Sunday, February 3, 2013

Foundation of a Weaponized Term

“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety
in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and
academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device
that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off
limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising
legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to
inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought
crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to
liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the
“New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely
played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the
groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings
on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a
detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,”
the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory”
term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group
calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and
activities into question.
This important memorandum and its broad implications for American
politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by
Florida State University political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. deHaven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy
concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in
events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political
assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times.
The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s
concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government”
vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially
interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed
information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques
for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists,
so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.”
For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially
politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s
integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the
critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and
“further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the
[Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets
to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and
feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering
“conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s
findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label
have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media
outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those
demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

*No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.

*Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.

*Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.

*Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.

*Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.

*Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died
mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be
explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for
the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators
occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely
resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question
state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood
occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the
document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and
operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance
of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy
Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and
unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and
action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the
rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and
constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and
deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential
for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.